In a decisive move to strengthen its trade position and reinforce commitments under ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, the government of Vietnam has made a concerted effort to improve intellectual property enforcement within the country. A key catalyst for this was the prime minister issuing a decision requesting all authorities to initiate sweeping enforcement actions to crack down on counterfeit goods across all provinces. Our firm has been actively involved in these operations. Working in close coordination with Vietnam’s Market Surveillance Authority, Customs, and Border Police, the firm has been instrumental in planning, intelligence gathering, and on-site enforcement. Key operations were conducted in major commercial hubs, including Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. In Hanoi, we collaborated with Market Surveillance Team No. 1 to inspect a major wholesaler in Hang Giay. These inspections resulted in the seizure of a significant volume of counterfeit perfumes and the identification of key suppliers within the illegal trade network. In Ho Chi Minh City, our firm supported large-scale inspection campaigns at well-known markets, including Saigon Square. Acting on intelligence, authorities executed multiple raids targeting shops and stalls notorious for selling counterfeit branded products. Specialists from our firm provided logistical support and real-time analysis to ensure swift and effective intervention. Beyond Vietnam’s urban centers, efforts extended to critical border zones in northern and central Vietnam. We worked with Customs and Border Police at major checkpoints to inspect high-risk shipments suspected of containing counterfeit goods. These operations led to the interception of several container loads of illicit products. The nationwide campaign also included targeted actions in several provinces known as hubs for storage and distribution. In Bac Giang, Da Nang, Hai Phong, Kien Giang, and Dong Nai, we assisted in coordinated raids on medium- to large-scale warehouses and distribution centers. These inspections uncovered

Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:

Vietnam’s government is currently undergoing a significant restructuring, consolidating and eliminating various agencies with the aim of streamlining operations and increasing efficiency. The restructuring will bring notable changes to the country’s intellectual property (IP) landscape. We discuss below key developments that may influence IP protection and enforcement in Vietnam in the coming years. Mergers of Ministries One of the most notable changes in the restructuring is the merger of several ministries, including the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Office is a unit under MOST; therefore, this merger is expected to impact various aspects of IP administration and enforcement. With the newly merged ministry—which is expected to retain the name of MOST—actively supporting the development of the digital economy, further advancements in digital tools for IP administration and prosecution are anticipated. This could include enhancements in e-filing, online procedures, and digital payment systems, contributing to greater accessibility and efficiency in IP-related services. Domain name disputes can also expect to see a more coordinated approach under the new ministry. Previously, jurisdiction over domain name disputes was divided between MIC and MOST, sometimes leading to procedural complexities. With both areas now under a single ministry, these matters are expected to be handled more seamlessly, potentially with a model aligned with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Structural Changes in Inspection Authorities The restructuring also affects inspection authorities responsible for IP enforcement, particularly those under MOST and the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST). These changes may cause temporary delays in administrative enforcement actions: The MOST Inspectorate, which handles industrial property violations, may experience slower enforcement during the transition. The MOCST Inspectorate, responsible for copyright enforcement, may face similar disruptions. However, these delays are expected to be temporary,

Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,